Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Dec 2010 23:55 UTC, submitted by Oliver
Permalink for comment 453607
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-08-19
http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html
A well known story, but not as easy to pull off as you might think. The original relies on special code in the compiler binary which a) recognises when it's compiling itself (to re-inject the special code), and b) recognises when it's compiling the login program (to implant the back-door).
Thing is, this *does* rely on that code being terribly clever. To work reliably, the compiler not only must recognise itself, but must also recognise future versions of itself. It needs to handle cross-compilation, e.g an x86 compiler producing an x86_64 target. And it needs to recognise when it's compiling other compilers, e.g gcc compiling Clang/LLVM or visa-versa. It also needs to contain no bugs, lest it attract attention when it goes wrong.
Now, how many people do you think there are who could write code that clever to start with, *and* do so in such a way that it would never be noticed by any of the other smart people.